The gun laws for me are part of the "rest" of the issue and really not my concerng when discussing this trial. I would also add that the gun laws in the US are a byproduct of the social fuckedupidness. Meanwhile, the general self defense rules are not.

Doofus.

the social context and laws are intertwined in this case; personally I care more about the broader aspects than this specific case. I do admire you for saying that the law isn't part of the legal aspect. Fancy lawyerin' degree at work.

She did apply, but they denied her because she went back into the house from the garage (because it was locked and she couldn't get out) before firing the shot. She was doubly fucked because they were pissed that she discharged the weapon near children, too. This is mind boggling since I've read about SYG being applied when people shoot people running away from them.

EDIT: As a disclaimer, we're well aware at this point that SYG does not appear to be a law that black people are supposed to use.

mayoradamwest wrote:the social context and laws are intertwined in this case; personally I care more about the broader aspects than this specific case. I do admire you for saying that the law isn't part of the legal aspect. Fancy lawyerin' degree at work.

Also,

Laws are part of the social fabric. Oh wow.. a breakthrough right threre. Did you come up with that gem all by yourself? Lets give this man a PhD in sociology!!

When discussing the legal regime applicable to a court case, its the laws that are directly applicable that are under scrutiny. Everything else is just "the rest". For fucks sake.. the leave no child behind act or whatever other stupid education law in the US may have left Zimmerman behind for all we know and that may have ultimately affected him in a way that got him to that situation. Should we scrutinize that legal nugget too or can we summarize all the rest and call them "fucked up social factors"?

Banana wrote:Even the legal situation surrounding the situation isn't that abnormal. Whats fucked up is the social context, not the legal one.

Thinking blacks are automatically thugs. Allowing a dude to walk around with a gun for no reason. Allowing a dude with a criminal record to have a gun. Etc.

The legal context is not that dissimilar to any other civilized place. Or at least not different enough to have me say that the verdict would be different in Saskatoon or Vancouver or Saint-Jérôme.

In fact, I applaud the liberal nature of the legal regime that allows people with no mens rhea to be acquitted from the charge of murder. And I would condemn any legal regime that has rules that lead to innocent minds being banished for life because of the circumstance surrounding the act. Y'all just a bunch of fascists (except Dr. C, Sturm, Dot and I)

Banana wrote:Laws are part of the social fabric. Oh wow.. a breakthrough right threre. Did you come up with that gem all by yourself? Lets give this man a PhD in sociology!!

When discussing the legal regime applicable to a court case, its the laws that are directly applicable that are under scrutiny. Everything else is just "the rest". For fucks sake.. the leave no child behind act or whatever other stupid education law in the US may have left Zimmerman behind for all we know and that may have ultimately affected him in a way that got him to that situation. Should we scrutinize that legal nugget too or can we summarize all the rest and call them "fucked up social factors"?

You do realize that the whole dispute with Chimera was over the stuff in "the rest" right? I don't think any of us really think Zimms deserved a guilty conviction, we just what he did was wrong and sympathize with the kid who got shot for walking home near an asshole

Craig wrote:You do realize that the whole dispute with Chimera was over the stuff in "the rest" right? I don't think any of us really think Zimms deserved a guilty conviction, we just what he did was wrong and sympathize with the kid who got shot for walking home near an asshole

jester wrote:The other thing here is that the gun rights lobby pushes responsibility as part of the carrying policies they advocate for. Specifically the idea that gun carriers both deserve that responsibility, and are more responsible because they carry. The extreme end literally believe that EVERYONE should be carrying at all times, as that will lead to a better society. even more alarming is that they preach a mental approach of hyper threat awareness. I forget the writer's name (a liberal who has a carry permit), but there was a really interesting piece written a few months back exploring the whole concept. So, part of the problem here is that if you are Zimmerman, and you are carrying, more responsibility is expected of you.

It is not too much to ask that our gun carrying citizens have a higher level of responsibility expected of em.

Spitzer (who knows a thing or two about prosecuting people) has come out and criticized the decision to go for murder as opposed to just manslaughter.

I sometimes read gun sites, and the "higher responsibility" thing is existent. It's 2 pronged though, yes there is this hyper-vigiliance to protect your family/property/neighbours aspect, but there is this also hyper-vigiliance against being prosecuted for the use of your firearm in these situations, and for responsible gun safety.

So yes, in jurisdictions where the NRA doesn't write the laws, a douche like Zimmerman would go to jail, even if Precious is the star witness. Here he'd have a better chance by claiming temporary insanity though, rather than self defense.

OTTAWA — A 20-year-old man convicted in the 2011 St. Patrick’s Day stabbing death of Scott Ledoux was sentenced to six years in jail.

A jury convicted Ben Taylor of manslaughter in February.

Taylor had testified during his trial that he was defending himself from an attack by a bigger, older man who was beating him in his own Orléans apartment.

Defence lawyer Pat McCann had argued that Taylor should be released from prison after already serving more than two years.

Crown prosecutor Robert Wadden had argued for eight years, including time already served, given that Taylor hid a knife in his pocket and stabbed an unarmed Ledoux eight times during a fist fight.

Justice Charles Hackland said that Taylor, who was 18 at the time of the stabbing, has “excellent prospects for rehabilitation.” The circumstances surrounding the stabbing were also a factor in the sentence.

“In this case, I believe a somewhat reduced sentence is warranted due to the severity of the beating Mr. Taylor received at the time he employed the knife,” Hackland ruled. “This provocation reduces the moral blameworthiness surrounding his use of the knife.”

Taylor had invited friends over for “pre-drinking” before heading out to a St. Patrick’s Day party the night of the stabbing, Hackland said in the decision. He left his one-bedroom basement apartment in the charge of one of his friends, but when he returned just after midnight he found it trashed, with a loud party in progress.

“Liquor and broken beer bottles and smashed furniture covered the floor,” Hackland said. “He immediately tried to get people to leave.”

Ledoux, 22, was one of several who refused to leave. He asked Taylor “What the f--- he was going to do about it,” Hackland detailed. Both were intoxicated.

“At that point, Mr. Taylor punched the victim in the head in what was considered by the victim and his friends to be a ‘sucker punch,’” Hackland said.

A “vigorous but brief fist fight” ensued, but was broken up, Hackland said. Ledoux went outside and called for Taylor to come fight him. It was at this point that Taylor picked up a steak knife from the sink and put it in his pocket. Two of his friends testified that Taylor said he would use it against Ledoux if he returned. Taylor also asked a friend to call 911.

Ledoux, who was 30 pounds heavier than Taylor, did return. He knocked Taylor to the ground and “was, by all accounts, administering a beating,” Hackland said. Despite many witnesses, no one saw the actual stabbing.

Taylor ran away from his apartment after stabbing Ledoux and spent the night at a friend’s house. He turned himself in the following day, after he found out Ledoux had died.

Taylor’s remaining sentence, after the two years and three months already served, is three years and nine months.

Banana wrote:Laws are part of the social fabric. Oh wow.. a breakthrough right threre. Did you come up with that gem all by yourself? Lets give this man a PhD in sociology!!

When discussing the legal regime applicable to a court case, its the laws that are directly applicable that are under scrutiny. Everything else is just "the rest". For fucks sake.. the leave no child behind act or whatever other stupid education law in the US may have left Zimmerman behind for all we know and that may have ultimately affected him in a way that got him to that situation. Should we scrutinize that legal nugget too or can we summarize all the rest and call them "fucked up social factors"?

Craig wrote:You do realize that the whole dispute with Chimera was over the stuff in "the rest" right? I don't think any of us really think Zimms deserved a guilty conviction, we just what he did was wrong and sympathize with the kid who got shot for walking home near an asshole

That was a touch over the top, though I enjoyed it. Also, what Craig said.

Big#D wrote:what if the non-guilty verdict just reaffirmed to him that he was right to defend himself? what if this situation was practically the same and his thought was, "i need to defend myself again." ? give the guy a break. he's just trying to make the world safe from skittle eating, hoodie wearing degenerates.